United States Marshals Service
United States Marshals Service
FY 2010 Performance Budget
Congressional Submission
Salaries & Expenses and Construction Appropriations
April 2009
Table of Contents
I. Overview for the United States Marshals Service 1
II. Summary of Program Changes 7
III. Appropriations Language and Analysis of Appropriations Language 8
IV. Decision Unit Justification
A. Judicial and Courthouse Security 9
1. Program Description 9
2. Performance Tables 12
3. Performance, Resources, and Strategies 17
B. Fugitive Apprehension 26
1. Program Description 26
2. Performance Tables 29
3. Performance, Resources, and Strategies 34
C. Prisoner Security and Transportation 39
1. Program Description 39
2. Performance Table 41
3. Performance, Resources, and Strategies 45
D. Protection of Witnesses 47
1. Program Description 47
2. Performance Tables 49
3. Performance, Resources, and Strategies 52
E. Tactical Operations 53
1. Program Description 53
2. Performance Table 56
3. Performance, Resources, and Strategies 60
V. Exhibits
A. Organizational Chart
B. Summary of Requirements
C. Program Increases by Decision Unit
D. Resources by DOJ Strategic Goal
E. Justification for Base Adjustments
F. Crosswalk of 2008 Availability
G. Crosswalk of 2009 Availability
H. Summary of Reimbursable Resources
I. Detail of Permanent Positions by Category
J. Financial Analysis of Program Increases/Offsets
K. Summary of Requirements by Grade
L. Summary of Requirements by Object Class
M. Status of Congressionally Requested Studies, Reports, and Evaluations (Not Applicable)
United States Marshals Service
FY 2010 Congressional Submission
Salaries and Expenses, and Construction
I. Overview for the United States Marshals Service
A. Introduction
The United States Marshals Service (USMS) ensures the functioning of the federal judicial process by protecting members of the judicial family (judges, attorneys, witnesses, and jurors), providing physical security in courthouses, safeguarding witnesses, transporting and producing prisoners for court proceedings, executing court orders and arrest warrants, apprehending fugitives, and seizing forfeited property. All USMS duties and responsibilities emanate from this core mission. Electronic copies of the Department of Justice’s congressional budget justifications and Capital Asset Plan and Business Case exhibits can be viewed or downloaded from the Internet using the Internet address: .
For FY 2010, the USMS requests a total of 5,544 positions, 5,109 FTE (excluding reimbursable FTE), and $1.138 billion for the Salaries and Expenses appropriation, and $14.0 million for the Construction appropriation, totaling $1.152 billion. Of this amount, 700 positions (528 Deputy Marshals), 350 FTE, and $134.345 million are salaries and expenses program enhancements to address Immigration Enforcement, and $10.0 million are program enhancements for construction ($144.345 total program enhancements).
B. Organizational History
The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the original 13 federal judicial districts and called for the appointment of a Marshal for each district. President Washington nominated the first Marshals and they were confirmed by the Senate on September 26, 1789. Each Marshal was invested with the following rights and responsibilities: to take an oath of office; to command assistance and appoint deputies as needed to serve a four-year appointment; to attend federal courts, including the Supreme Court when sitting in his district; and to execute all lawful precepts directed by the U.S. government.
The early Marshals had duties beyond those of present-day Marshals, such as taking the census and serving as collection and disbursal agents for the federal court system. Until 1896, Marshals did not receive salaries. They were compensated from fees collected for performing their official duties.
The Attorney General began supervising the Marshals in 1861. The Department of Justice (DOJ) was created in 1870 and the Marshals have been under DOJ’s purview since that time. The first organization to supervise Marshals nationwide, the Executive Office for United States Marshals, was established in 1956 by the Deputy Attorney General. DOJ Order 415-69 established the United States Marshals Service on May 12, 1969. On November 18, 1988, the USMS was officially established as a bureau within the Department under the authority and direction of the Attorney General with its Director appointed by the President. Prior to 1988, the Director of the USMS was appointed by the Attorney General. The most recent headquarters organizational chart is displayed in Exhibit A.
The role of the U.S. Marshals has had a profound impact on the history of this country since the time when America was expanding across the continent into the western territories. With changes in prosecutorial emphasis over time, the mission of the USMS has transitioned as well. In more recent history, law enforcement emphasis has shifted with changing social mandates. Examples include:
• In the 1960s, Deputy Marshals provided security and escorted Ruby Bridges and James Meredith to school following federal court orders requiring segregated Southern schools and colleges to integrate.
• In 1973, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was created resulting in a greater focus on drug-related arrests. The USMS immediately faced rapidly increasing numbers of drug-related detainees, protected witnesses, and fugitives.
• As the number of immigrants illegally entering the U.S. skyrocketed in the 1990s, the USMS experienced huge prisoner and fugitive workload growth along the Southwest Border, and is currently anticipating further increases as additional immigration legislation is implemented.
• With more resources dedicated to apprehending and prosecuting suspected terrorists, the USMS strives to meet the increasing demands for high-level security required for many violent criminal and terrorist-related court proceedings.
• The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-248) strengthened federal penalties by making the failure to register as a sex offender a federal offense. This Act directs the USMS to “assist jurisdictions in locating and apprehending sex offenders who violate sex offender registry requirements.” This law marks an important step forward in the efforts to protect children from sexual and other violent crimes.
C. USMS Budget
In the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Congress provided the USMS with
$954.0 million of which $950.0 million was provided in the Salaries and Expenses (S&E) appropriation and $4.0 million in the Construction appropriation. Of this amount, $31.933 million were S&E program enhancements to address critical needs related to immigration enforcement, judicial security, regional fugitive task forces, and Adam Walsh Act enforcement, while $1.696 million was the Construction appropriation program enhancement for high priority renovation projects.
In addition to these direct resources, the USMS also receives reimbursable and other indirect resources from a variety of sources. Some of the larger sources include:
• The Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT) provides funding for housing, transportation via the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System (JPATS), medical care, and other expenses related to federal detainees;
• The Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) provides funding for administering the Judicial Facility Security Program;
• The Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) provides funding for managing and disposing seized assets;
• The Fees and Expenses of Witnesses (FEW) appropriation provides funding for securing and relocating protected witnesses; and
• The Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) provides funding for apprehending major drug case fugitives.
The U.S. Marshals Service S&E budget is divided into five decision units. These decision units contain the personnel and funds associated with the following missions:
• Judicial and Courthouse Security – protects federal judges, jurors and other members of the federal judiciary. This mission is accomplished by anticipating and deterring threats to the judiciary, and the continuous development and employment of innovative protective techniques;
• Fugitive Apprehension – conducts investigations involving: escaped federal prisoners; probation, parole and bond default violators; and fugitives based on warrants generated during drug investigations;
• Prisoner Security and Transportation – moves prisoners between judicial districts, correctional institutions and foreign countries;
• Protection of Witnesses – provides for the security, health and safety of government witnesses and their immediate dependents whose lives are in danger as a result of their testimony against drug traffickers, terrorists, organized crime members and other major criminals; and
• Tactical Operations – conducts special assignments and security missions in situations involving crisis response, homeland security and other national emergencies.
D. Strategic Goals
The USMS mission supports all three goals within the DOJ Strategic Plan. Goal I is to “Prevent Terrorism and Promote the Nation’s Security.” Objective 1.2 is to “Strengthen partnerships to prevent, deter, and respond to terrorist incidents.” The USMS supports this objective by:
• Conducting threat assessments and investigating incoming threats or inappropriate communications made against members of the judicial family, and
• Assigning Deputy Marshals to FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces to work terrorism cases and share information that may be critical to protect the federal judiciary.
Goal II is to “Prevent Crime, Enforce Federal Laws, and Represent the Rights and Interests of the American People.” Objective 2.3 is to “Prevent, suppress, and intervene in crimes against children.” Objective 2.4 is to “Reduce the threat, trafficking, use, and related violence of illegal drugs.” The USMS supports these objectives by:
• Participating on the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF).
• Enforcing the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.
Goal III is to “Ensure the Fair and Efficient Administration of Justice.” The majority of USMS resources are devoted to support Goal III. Objective 3.1 is to “Protect judges, witnesses, and other participants in federal proceedings, and ensure the appearance of criminal defendants for judicial proceedings or confinement.” Objective 3.2 is to “Ensure the apprehension of fugitives from justice." The USMS supports these objectives by:
• Protecting judges, prosecutors, and other participants in the federal judicial system;
• Securing federal court facilities and renovating courthouses to meet security standards;
• Investigating and apprehending federal, state, and local fugitives;
• Transporting prisoners to court-ordered proceedings;
• Operating and maintaining the fleet of aircraft and ground transportation assets that comprise the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System (JPATS);
• Protecting witnesses who provide testimony on behalf of the US Government; and
• Providing tactical support for any AG-directed mission, including natural disasters and civil disturbances.
Since 2003, the USMS has worked with DOJ and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to conduct program assessments of two major mission areas: Judicial Security and Fugitive Apprehension. Each area has documented results and strategic improvements underway to continue mission effectiveness.
E. Challenges
USMS mission responsibilities continue to grow, making effective planning essential to accomplish the workload and meet all expectations. Most of these challenges fall into broad categories:
External Challenges
New federal law enforcement initiatives and efficiencies yield a larger number of arrests, and each federal arrest leads to additional workload for the USMS because the USMS maintains custody of all arrested individuals for the duration of a trial. According to data from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts[1], in the decade between FY 1997 and FY 2006 the number of criminal cases filed in federal courts rose 34%. Immigration case filings rose 145% during this period, with the five federal districts along the Southwest Border seeing an increase of 182%. In FY 2006, these five districts accounted for 70% of all immigration cases in the US, up from 60% at the beginning of the decade. During this time, drug-related case filings increased by 41% and there was also a 153% increase in the number of cases related to firearms and explosives.
When the FBI shifted its focus to anti-terrorism efforts in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, investigations targeting illegal drugs, organized crime, and white-collar crime were reduced. As a result, the USMS filled this gap with intensified efforts to coordinate with state and local police to apprehend fugitives, particularly those involved in gang-related violent crime and crimes against children. Programs targeting gang and gun violence include the Violent Crimes Impact Teams, Project Safe Neighborhoods, GangTECC, and the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative.
In addition, terrorists and criminals are using increasingly sophisticated technologies to threaten, subvert, and undermine the judicial process. Adoption of secure wireless technologies is required to support an increasingly mobile USMS workforce, which includes task forces, tactical and special operations groups, judicial and witness security inspectors, and personnel deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other foreign locales. Robust information technology (IT) infrastructure systems and applications are required to keep pace with new and expanding government information sharing and communications initiatives such as the Justice Unified Telecommunications Network (JUTNET) and Joint Automated Booking Stations (JABS).
Internal Challenges
The USMS must maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of its programs to address increasing workload. The USMS must also ensure that effective business processes and reliable financial systems are in place to efficiently and responsibly manage limited resources. Toward that end, the USMS has worked to address material weaknesses identified in annual financial management audits. Significant strides have been made to improve fiscal accountability and system/data integrity including:
• Appropriately segregating duties;
• Monitoring user activity through review of unalterable logs;
• Applying more stringent access controls;
• Enhancing system backup and restoration capabilities; and
• Deploying automated tools to comply with federal IT security requirements.
After audits by the OIG, GAO and independent auditors noted material weaknesses or nonconformance in a number of aspects of financial control and assurance in previous years, the USMS placed a focused emphasis on addressing and correcting the conditions allowing these weaknesses to occur.
This increased emphasis on improving the internal controls environment led to changes in financial management, information technology, human resources, and other administrative areas. For example, a new, more secure wide area network was deployed covering more than 370 locations and several enhancements were made to JDIS. Electronic self-audit checklists were developed for human resource and administrative functions to allow for a significant increase in the number of district reviews that can be conducted in a given year. The USMS is improving its in-house accounting system during FY 2009 to prepare for the migration to the new DOJ accounting system, the Unified Financial Management System (UFMS). Much of the progress noted above was achieved through a more effective leveraging of technology, and the USMS has made significant progress in developing its IT infrastructure.
Over the last several years, USMS offices in the five Southwest Border districts have seen their workloads increase due to enhanced immigration enforcement efforts. Since 2001, Congress has appropriated funds to DHS allowing for a near doubling of the number of border patrol agents from approximately 9,000 in 2001 to over 18,000 in FY 2008. This increase in the number of border agents has contributed to a 168% increase in prisoners received by the USMS from the Border Patrol in that same period. Additionally, zero-tolerance and other prosecution initiatives have also contributed to an increase in USMS workload via an increase in the daily prisoner population and required prisoner productions.
One of the key challenges facing the USMS is to expeditiously bring these additional resources online. In addition to conducting the hiring and background investigation process and requisite training for new employees, bringing new Deputy Marshals and administrative staff on board will also require a variety of procurement actions, from office equipment and supplies to vehicles, IT and communications devices, and personal protective gear. District offices also require some physical rearrangement or renovation in order to accommodate additional personnel and equipment in existing space.
Internal and External Challenge
The evolving and expanding operational missions of the USMS require periodic re-evaluation of the Deputy Marshal position to ensure the USMS is appropriately classifying and compensating employees for the work performed. The USMS operates under very broad statutory authority. (See 28 U.S.C. § 564 and 566.) This authority provides the USMS with a great deal of discretion in performing its complex missions. Since September 11, 2001, the country’s law enforcement environment has changed and the USMS missions have expanded and elevated in their level of complexity. Re-evaluating the law enforcement career path based on these mission changes ensures that USMS personnel are properly classified and compensated consistent with Office of Personnel Management (OPM) standards.
For FY 2009, approximately 75 percent of the 4,772 positions are classified as law enforcement including deputy marshals (OPM job series “0082”) and criminal investigators (OPM job series “1811”). The USMS refers to its entire law enforcement workforce as “Deputy U.S. Marshals” whether the employee is in the 0082 or 1811 job series because each person carries the same badge and takes the same oath as a federal law enforcement officer. The typical career ladder begins at the GL-0082-7 level and rises to the GS-1811-12 level. Thereafter, Deputy Marshals must compete through the merit promotion process to become specialized inspectors or supervisors at the GS-13 and above levels.
As part of the Deputy Development Program, the USMS has a certification process to ensure that Deputy Marshals fully develop a broad array of skills to address all operational areas: court security; protective assignments; witness security; fugitive investigations; prisoner handling; and asset forfeiture. The process requires “hands on” experience over a number of years to progress through the career ladder. The USMS is re-examining its Deputy Development Program to ensure that the certification process accurately reflects the requirements of the duties of today’s position, taking into consideration evolving tools available for modern criminal investigation.
In addition, the USMS is reassessing the full performance level of Deputy Marshal position based on increased complexity of work and expanded duty and mission requirements. The business case for upgrading the position will be based on the expanded duties, responsibilities, and scope of the work currently required of Deputy Marshals. As the USMS works with OPM to examine the job series classification issues, the USMS is also analyzing the financial impact in the future. The USMS recognizes that revising the certification process and increasing the full performance level have significant immediate and long term impacts throughout the agency. There are many internal challenges in terms of updating policies, revising training methods, and streamlining recruiting and hiring practices. There are also many external challenges in terms of obtaining resources and approvals from DOJ, OMB, other agencies, and Congress.
II. Summary of Program Changes
|Item Name |Description |Page |
| | |Pos. |FTE |Dollars ($000) | |
|Immigration |Resources to improve judicial security, and criminal alien apprehension|700 |350 |$134,345 |21 |
|Enforcement, S&E |and processing. | | | | |
|Prisoner Holding, |Resources to renovate prisoner holding and related support space in |... |... |$10,000 |23 |
|Construction |Federal courthouse facilities. | | | | |
|Total Program Change |700 |350 |$144,345 | |
III. Appropriations Language and Analysis of Appropriations Language
Appropriations Language
United States Marshals Service
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the United States Marshals Service, [$950,000,000] $1,138,388,000; of which not to exceed [$30,000] $6,000 shall be available for official reception and representation expenses; of which not to exceed $4,000,000 shall remain available until expended for information technology systems; and of which not less than $12,625,000 shall be available for the costs of courthouse security equipment, including furnishings, relocations and telephone systems and cabling, and shall remain available until expended. (Department of Justice Appropriation Act, 2009.)
[For an additional amount for “Salaries and Expenses”, $28,621,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009] (Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008.)
Construction
For construction in space controlled, occupied or utilized by the United States Marshals Service for prisoner holding and related support, [$4,000,000] $14,000,000, to remain available until expended. (Department of Justice Appropriation Act, 2009.)
Analysis of Appropriations Language
No substantive changes proposed.
IV. Decision Unit Justification
A. Judicial and Courthouse Security
|Judicial and Courthouse Security (S&E) |Perm. Pos. |FTE |Amount |
|2008 Enacted with Rescissions |1,787 |1,715 |355,038 |
| 2008 Supplementals |… |… |7,951 |
|2008 Enacted w/Rescissions and Supplementals |1,787 |1,715 |362,989 |
|2009 Enacted |1,864 |1,818 |379,508 |
|Adjustments to Base and Technical Adjustments |… |13 |14,734 |
|2010 Current Services |1,864 |1,831 |394,242 |
|2010 Program Increases |234 |117 |44,781 |
|2010 Request |2,098 |1,948 |439,023 |
|Total Change 2009-2010 |234 |130 |59,515 |
|Judicial and Courthouse Security (Construction) |Perm. Pos. |FTE |Amount |
|2008 Enacted with Rescissions |… |… |2,304 |
|2009 Enacted |… |… |4,000 |
|2010 Current Services |… |… |4,000 |
|2010 Program Increases |… |… |10,000 |
|2010 Request |… |… |14,000 |
|Total Change 2009-2010 |… |… |10,000 |
|Judicial and Courthouse Security TOTAL |Perm. Pos. |FTE |Amount |
|2008 Enacted with Rescissions |1,787 |1,715 |357,342 |
| 2008 Supplementals |… |… |7,951 |
|2008 Enacted w/Rescissions and Supplementals |1,787 |1,715 |365,293 |
|2009 Enacted |1,864 |1,818 |383,508 |
|Adjustments to Base and Technical Adjustments |… |13 |14,734 |
|2010 Current Services |1,864 |1,831 |398,242 |
|2010 Program Increases |234 |117 |54,781 |
|2010 Request |2,098 |1,948 |453,023 |
|Total Change 2009-2010 |234 |130 |69,515 |
1. Program Description
Judicial and Courthouse Security encompasses personnel security (security protective detail for a judge or prosecutor) and building security (security equipment to monitor and protect a federal courthouse facility). Judicial security also includes maintaining security of prisoners in custody during court proceedings. Deputy Marshals are assigned to 94 judicial districts (93 federal districts and the Superior Court for the District of Columbia) to protect the federal judicial system which handles a variety of cases including domestic and international terrorists, domestic and international organized criminal organizations, drug trafficking, gangs, and extremist groups. The USMS determines the level of security required for high-threat situations by assessing the threat level, developing security plans based on risks and threat levels, and assigning the commensurate security resources required to maintain a safe environment.
High-security, high-profile events require extensive operational planning and support from specially trained and equipped personnel due to the potential for additional terrorist attacks, threats from extremist groups, the intense media attention, the general public’s concerns, and global interest of these events. The complexity and threat levels associated with these cases require additional Deputy Marshals for all aspects of USMS work.
Each judicial district and the 12 circuit courts are assigned a Judicial Security Inspector. These inspectors are senior-level Deputy Marshals that have experience in every aspect of judicial security. The Judicial Security Inspectors improve the USMS’ ability to provide security due to their special experience in evaluating security precautions and procedures in federal courthouses. The inspectors assist with off-site security for judges, prosecutors, and other protectees. They also act as the USMS liaison with the Federal Protective Service (FPS) and the federal judiciary.
In 2005, the Office of Protective Intelligence (OPI) was established using existing USMS headquarters resources. Additional resources were provided through the Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief of 2005 (P.L. 109-13). OPI’s mission is to review and analyze intelligence and information relating to the safety and security of members of the judiciary and USMS protectees. Pertinent information is disseminated to districts so appropriate measures can be put into place to protect the judicial process.
The USMS and FBI work together to assess and investigate all inappropriate communications received. The FBI has responsibility for investigating threats for the purpose of prosecution. The USMS conducts protective investigations that focus on rendering the threatened harmless, regardless of the possibility for prosecution. The protective investigation involves the systematic discovery, collection, and assessment of available information. The investigation is to determine a suspect’s true intent, motive, and ability to harm the targeted individual. The investigation includes a plan to render the suspect harmless with no risk to the targeted individual. These investigations are the USMS’ highest priority due to the potential risk to the targeted individual.
The USMS also manages the Court Security Officer (CSO) Program, funded through the Court Security Appropriation from the Judiciary. There are approximately 4,000 CSOs who assist Deputy Marshals and the FPS with building security. Their duties include: monitoring security systems; responding to duress alarms; screening visitors at building entrances; controlling access to garages; providing perimeter security in areas not patrolled by FPS; and screening mail and packages.
In addition to maintaining physical security of federal courthouses, the USMS also installs and maintains electronic security systems in USMS-controlled space and developing and implementing security system installation plans to protect new and renovated courthouses. This is critical to the safety of judicial officials, courtroom participants, the general public, and USMS personnel. USMS-controlled space includes holding cells adjacent to courtrooms, prisoner/attorney interview rooms, cellblocks, vehicle sally ports, prisoner elevators, USMS office space, and special purpose space. Cameras, duress alarms, remote door openers and all other security devices improve the security presence in prisoner-movement areas. When incidents occur, the USMS is equipped to record events, monitor personnel and prisoners, send additional staff to secure the situation, and identify situations requiring a tactical response.
2. Performance Tables
|PERFORMANCE AND RESOURCES TABLE |
|Decision Unit: Judicial and Courthouse Security |
|DOJ Strategic Goal/Objective: I: 1.2 Strengthen partnerships to prevent, deter, and respond to terrorist incidents. III: Ensure the Fair and Efficient Adminstration of Justice 3.1 Protect judges, witnesses, and other |
|participants in federal proceedings, and ensure the appearance of criminal defendants for judicial proceedings or confinement. |
|WORKLOAD/ RESOURCES |Final Target | Actual |Projected |Changes |Requested (Total) |
| |FY 2008 |FY 2008 | 2009 Requirements |Current Services Adjustments|FY 2010 Request |
| | | | |and FY 2010 Program | |
|1. Number of court prisoner productions |668,250 |711,509 |747,803 |72,040 |819,843 |
|2. Potential threats to members of the judicial process |1,200 |1,278 |1,405 |140 |1,545 |
|Total Costs and FTE |FTE | |$000 |FTE | |$000 |
|(reimbursable FTE are | | | | | | |
|included, but reimbursable | | | | | | |
|costs are bracketed and not | | | | | | |
|included in the total) | | | | | | |
|Performance Measure |2. Protective details provided |490 |540 |560 |30 |590 |
|Performance Measure |
|Decision Unit: Judicial and Courthouse Security | | | |
|Performance Report and Performance Plan |FY 2002 |FY 2003 |
|Targets | | |
|Pos |Agent |FTE |
|Pos |Agent |FTE |$(000) |Pos |
|Deputy US Marshal |$205 |525 |$107,712 |$(12,960) |
|Deputy US Marshal – Foreign Office |553 |3 |1,659 |(146) |
|Administrative |67 |172 |11,512 |6,679 |
|Total Personnel | |700 |$120,883 |$(6,427) |
Non-Personnel Increase Cost Summary
|Non-Personnel Item |Unit Cost |Quantity |FY 2010 Request |FY 2011 Net |
| | | |($000) |Annualization |
| | | | |(Change from 2009) |
| | | | |($000) |
|IT & Agency Infrastructure (S&E) |… |… |13,462 |… |
|Courthouse Renovation (Construction) |… |… |10,000 |… |
|Total Non-Personnel |… |… |23,462 |… |
Total Request for this Item
| |Pos | |FTE |Personnel |Non-Personnel |Total |
| | |Agent | |($000) |($000) |($000) |
|Current Services (S&E) |778 |643 |754 |$94,886 |… |$94,886 |
|Current Services | | | |$4,000 | |$4,000 |
|(Construction) | | | | | | |
|Increases (S&E) |700 |528 |350 |120,883 |13,462 |134,345 |
|Increases (Construction) | | | | |$10,000 |$10,000 |
|Grand Total |1,478 |1,171 |1,104 |$219,769 |$23,462 |$243,231 |
B. Fugitive Apprehension
|Fugitive Apprehension TOTAL |Perm. Pos. |FTE |Amount |
|2008 Enacted with Rescissions |1,379 |1,352 |$273,448 |
| 2008 Supplementals |72 |72 |16,970 |
|2008 Enacted w/Rescissions and Supplementals |1,451 |1,424 |290,418 |
|2009 Enacted |1,526 |1,448 |304,586 |
|Adjustments to Base and Technical Adjustments |72 |123 |29,065 |
|2010 Current Services |1,598 |1,571 |333,651 |
|2010 Program Increases |233 |116 |44,782 |
|2010 Request |1,831 |1,687 |378,432 |
|Total Change 2009-2010 |305 |239 |73,846 |
1. Program Description
The Fugitive Apprehension decision unit includes domestic and international fugitive investigations, technical operations, criminal information analysis, special deputations to support fugitive investigations, fugitive extraditions and deportations, sex offender investigations, service of process, and the seizure of assets.
The USMS is authorized to locate and apprehend federal, state, and local fugitives both within and outside the U.S. under 28 USC 566(e)(1)(B). The USMS has a long history of providing assistance and expertise to other law enforcement agencies in support of fugitive investigations. The broad scope and responsibilities of the USMS concerning the location and apprehension of federal, state, local, and foreign fugitives is detailed in a series of federal laws, rules, regulations, Department of Justice policies, Office of Legal Counsel opinions, and memoranda of understanding with other federal law enforcement agencies.
The USMS established the 15 Most Wanted Fugitive Program in 1983 in an effort to prioritize the investigation and apprehension of high-profile offenders who are considered to be some of the country’s most dangerous fugitives. In 1985, The USMS established its Major Case Fugitive Program in an effort to supplement the successful 15 Most Wanted Fugitive Program. Much like the 15 Most Wanted Fugitive Program, the Major Case Fugitive Program prioritizes the investigation and apprehension of high-profile offenders who tend to be career criminals whose histories of violence pose a significant threat to public safety. Current and past fugitives targeted by this program include murderers, violent gang members, sex offenders, major drug kingpins, organized crime figures, and individuals wanted for high-profile financial crimes.
The Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000 directed the Attorney General, “upon consultation with appropriate Department of Justice and Department of the Treasury law enforcement components, to establish permanent Fugitive Apprehension Task Forces consisting of Federal, state, and local law enforcement authorities in designated regions of the United States, to be directed and coordinated by the USMS, for the purpose of locating and apprehending fugitives.” Using that authority, the USMS created Regional Fugitive Task Forces (RFTFs) to locate and apprehend the most violent fugitives and to assist in high-profile investigations that identify criminal activities for future state and federal prosecutions. In January 2008, the RFTFs were re-authorized as part of the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-177).
The investigative information collected by the USMS leads to the development of new sources, new case referrals, and the acquisition of information and intelligence that support both criminal investigations and new fugitive cases. In FY 2002, the USMS established two RFTFs in New York/New Jersey and Pacific Southwest regions. Three additional RFTFs were established during FY 2003 and FY 2004 in the Great Lakes, Southeast and Capital Area regions. In
FY 2006, an RFTF was approved for the Gulf Coast Region, bringing the total number of RFTFs to six. As part of the USMS Strategic Plan, the USMS has identified 12 more regions where RFTFs could be beneficial.
With the recent addition of the Southern Maine Violent Fugitive Task Force and the Guam Fugitive Task Force, the USMS sponsors 87 district-managed, multi-agency task forces throughout the country that focus their investigative efforts on fugitives wanted for federal, state and local crimes of violence, including sex offenders, gang members, and drug traffickers. Funding for these task forces is often granted through initiatives such as the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) and Project Safe Neighborhoods programs.
As a result of the enactment of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-248), the USMS established the Sex Offender Apprehension Program (SOAP) in August 2006. The Act states that “In order to protect the public from sex offenders and offenders against children …” the “Attorney General shall use the resources of Federal law enforcement, including the United States Marshals Service, to assist jurisdictions in locating and apprehending sex offenders who violate sex offender registration requirements.” The USMS is the lead law enforcement agency responsible for investigating sex offender registration violations under the Act. The USMS has three distinct missions pursuant to the Act, including: (1) assisting state, local, tribal, and territorial authorities in the location and apprehension of non-compliant sex offenders; (2) investigating violations of 18 USC § 2250 and related offenses; and (3) assisting in the identification and location of sex offenders relocated as a result of a major disaster. The USMS carries out its duties in partnership with state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement authorities and works closely with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). SOAP activities also support Project Safe Childhood.
The USMS also supports its fugitive mission through the use of state-of-the art surveillance equipment and specially trained investigators of the USMS Technical Operations Group (TOG). The USMS provides investigative support such as telephone monitoring, electronic tracking and audio-video recording. With the use of this technologically-advanced equipment, various types of cellular and land-based communications are effectively tracked and traced. In addition, analysts provide tactical and strategic expertise in fugitive investigations. The USMS also enhances fugitive investigative efforts through data exchange with other agencies, such as the Social Security Administration, DEA, the Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, Department of State, and multiple state and local task forces around the country.
In addition to domestic fugitive investigations, the USMS is responsible for conducting nearly all fugitive extraditions to the U.S. from foreign countries, and for supporting extraditions to foreign countries from the U.S. The complexities of international extraditions require constant coordination and communication with the DOJ Office of International Affairs, Department of State, foreign governments, U.S. Embassies, and USMS district offices. As a member of Interpol, the USMS works with foreign law enforcement officials and cooperates with the Department of State and other U.S. law enforcement agencies in foreign locations to investigate, apprehend and extradite American and foreign fugitives both in the U.S. and abroad. The USMS established foreign field offices in 2003 at the U.S. Embassies in Jamaica, Dominican Republic, and Mexico.
The USMS administers the DOJ Asset Forfeiture Program (AFP), which is one of DOJ’s most potent weapons against criminal organizations including complex drug organizations, terrorist networks, organized crime, and money laundering groups. The three goals of the AFP are to: (1) strip criminals of their ill-gotten gains; (2) improve law enforcement cooperation; and (3) enhance law enforcement through equitable revenue sharing. The USMS manages and disposes of the assets seized and forfeited by participating federal law enforcement agencies (including DEA, FBI, ATF, FDA, and US Postal Inspection Service) and US Attorneys nationwide, and is funded from two different sources to accomplish this mission. The administrative personnel are paid through the DOJ Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) on a reimbursable basis while Deputy Marshals’ salaries and benefits are funded from the USMS S&E appropriation.
In August 2008, the Attorney General granted a waiver to the USMS to fund 28 new Deputy Marshals from the Asset Forfeiture Fund to work exclusively in the USMS AFP. These positions are in addition to those Deputy Marshals who are currently performing AFF-related duties and funded through the USMS Salaries and Expenses (S&E) appropriation. It is proposed that these positions will be phased in over multiple years.
The USMS conducts pre-seizure planning which is the process of determining the assets to be targeted for forfeiture and executing court orders for seizures or taking physical custody of assets. The USMS conducts pre-seizure planning with other law enforcement components, execute court orders, and assist in the physical seizure and security of the assets. A national cadre of USMS employees manages and disposes of all assets seized for forfeiture by utilizing successful procedures employed by the private sector. All seized properties are carefully inventoried, appraised, and maintained. Once the assets are forfeited, the USMS ensures that they are disposed of in a timely and commercially sound manner. Upon forfeiture of the assets, USMS completes the disposal process by sharing the equity with participating state and local law enforcement agencies.
Operational and administrative coordination within the agency and with other law enforcement agencies is critical to program success. Without a coordinated asset seizure and property management system, assets would fall into disrepair, lose value, and would be more difficult to dispose of in a timely manner.
2. Performance Tables
[pic]
A. Definition of Terms or Explanations for Indicators:
Workload:
1. A primary federal felony fugitive has a warrant(s) in which the USMS has primary apprehension responsibility. These include: escapes from federal custody, supervisory violations, provisional warrants issued at the request of foreign governments, warrants issued by other federal agencies that do not have arrest power, and other federal law enforcement agencies' warrants that are referred to the USMS for apprehension responsibility. Wanted fugitives include all those wanted at the beginning of the fiscal year, plus all fugitive cases received by the USMS throughout the fiscal year.
2. The number of assets seized includes those seized by the USMS and other participants in the DOJ forfeiture program plus assets transferred into USMS custody.
Performance Measures:
1. A primary violent federal felony fugitive is any individual that has a warrant where the offense code, or the original offense code (for those wanted for supervisory violations), is for Non-Negligent Homicide, Rape, Aggravated Assault, or Robbery, or if the fugitive has an arrest or conviction in their criminal history for any of these 4 crimes, or if the fugitive is designated by the DEA as a violent offender. Also, all sex offenses as defined in the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (AWA), as well as violations of sex offender registration laws, are considered violent crime. All fugitives reported in this measure are the primary apprehension responsibility of the USMS.
2. A violent state and local felony fugitive is any individual that has a warrant where the offense code, or the original offense code (for those wanted for supervisory violations), is for Non-Negligent Homicide, Rape, Aggravated Assault, or Robbery, or if the fugitive has an arrest or conviction in their criminal history for any of these 4 crimes, or if the fugitive is designated by the DEA as a violent offender. Also, all sex offenses as defined in the AWA, as well as violations of sex offender registration laws, are considered violent crime. This measure includes violent felony state and local fugitives that were cleared in conjunction with state, local, and other federal law enforcement assistance through USMS-led task forces and warrant squads. These individuals are not wanted for federal charges.
3. The total number of primary violent federal fugitives cleared, and state and local violent felony fugitives cleared through USMS-led task forces and warrant squads in a year, is divided by the full-cost FTEs identified in the fugitive apprehension decision unit. A full-cost FTE is comprised of two portions: the FTE associated with investigations and apprehension, and the prorated portion of overhead FTE that support the Deputy Marshals. Overhead FTE (as in procurement, budget, management, human resources, and network support) is included so that the complete effort involved with fugitive apprehension is displayed.
4. A primary federal felony fugitive has a warrant(s) in which the USMS has primary apprehension responsibility. These include escapes from federal custody, supervisory violations, provisional warrants issued at the request of foreign governments, warrants
issued by other federal agencies that do not have arrest power, and other federal law enforcement agencies' warrants that are referred to the USMS for apprehension responsibility. A fugitive is considered cleared if the fugitive is arrested, has a detainer issued, or the
warrant is dismissed. A state and local felony fugitive is a fugitive with a state or local felony warrant. The total number of primary federal felony fugitives cleared and state and local felony fugitives cleared through USMS-led task forces and warrant squads, in a
year, is divided by the full-cost FTEs identified in the fugitive apprehension decision unit. A full-cost FTE is defined in measure 3. 5.b. The number listed for “cash” signifies the total separate cash assets in USMS custody.
5.c. “Other” assets include: businesses, business inventory, financial instruments, aircraft, jewelry, vessels, vehicles, and heavy machinery.
6. The percent of real property assets that sold for more than 85 percent of its fair market value is based on the total number of real property assets sold in the fiscal year. If a real property asset is not sold after the one-year benchmark, the price may be reduced to expedite the sale. However, if the price was not reduced after the one-year period, and has not sold at 85 percent or more of its fair market value, the property may stay in the inventory for more than one year.
7. The time frame set by the USMS for disposal of real property is 12 months (365 days) based on the best practices of the real estate industry.
Outcome:
8. This measure combines measures 1 and 2 to provide the total of violent fugitives apprehended or cleared.
9. This measure reports the number and percentage of primary federal felony fugitives apprehended or cleared. The percent cleared is calculated by taking the number of cleared fugitives divided by the sum of received fugitives (fugitives that had a warrant issued during the fiscal year) and on-hand fugitives (fugitives that had an active warrant at the beginning of the fiscal year).
B. Factors Affecting FY 2008 Program Performance.
The USMS exceeded its fugitive apprehension targets primarily due to the success of operation FALCON, a nationwide fugitive apprehension operation which arrested 19,380 fugitives. This initiative involved the collaboration of federal, state, city and county law enforcement agencies to locate and apprehend criminals wanted for crimes of violence.
The USMS did not achieve its goal for the percent of real property assets sold at 85% or more of its fair market value and percent of real property assets disposed within one year of receipt of the forfeiture documentation due to the slowing real estate market. Market forces not only increased the length of time it took to sell real property but also had a negative impact on real property prices.
C. Factors Affecting FY 2009 and FY 2010 Plans.
The ability of the USMS to keep pace with court operations, to include prisoner transportation, security, and productions, will directly impact the effectiveness of the fugitive apprehension initiatives. As long as the USM receives adequate staffing for its judicial and court security operations, there will be continued focus on fugitive investigation and apprehension. However, when resources are stretched beyond capacity, the USMS must often redirect its operational workforce and temporarily suspend or reduce fugitive investigations. Increased court and prisoner processing along the Southwest Border, for example, has negatively impacted fugitive apprehensions in that region of the country. This is particularly troublesome given the clear nexus between the escalating Mexican drug cartels and violent crime. The effectiveness of specific FALCON operations, and the continuation of city sites conducting Fugitive Safe Surrender operations, will have significant impact on the number of fugitives apprehended.
[pic]
3. Performance, Resources, and Strategies
The Fugitive Apprehension decision unit contributes to the Department’s Strategic Goal II: Prevent Crime, Enforce Laws, and Represent the Rights and Interests of the American People; and Goal III: Ensure the Fair and Efficient Administration of Justice. Within these goals, the decision unit’s resources specifically address two of the Department’s Strategic Objectives: Objective 2.3 - Prevent, suppress, and intervene in crimes against children; and Objective 3.2 – Ensure the apprehension of fugitives from justice.
The USMS arrests more federal fugitives than all other federal agencies combined. The USMS is authorized to investigate such fugitive matters, both within and outside the U.S., as directed by the Attorney General, although this authorization is not to be construed to interfere with or supersede the authority of other federal agencies or bureaus. The U.S. Marshals are unique in that, when executing the laws of the U.S. within a state, they may exercise the same powers which a sheriff of the state may exercise. This authority provides the U. S. Marshals with the tools of both a first-tier federal law enforcement officer and the state sheriff. The USMS possesses the authority to enforce the Fugitive Felon Act and, as a result of its broad statutory authority, may assist state and local agencies in their fugitive missions even in the absence of interstate or other extra-jurisdictional flight.
[pic]
Data Definition: All fugitives reported in this measure are the primary apprehension responsibility of the USMS. A primary federal felony fugitive has a warrant(s) in which the USMS has primary apprehension responsibility. These include escapes from federal custody, supervisory violations, provisional warrants issued at the request of foreign governments, warrants issued by other federal agencies that do not have arrest power, and other federal law enforcement agencies' warrants that are referred to the USMS for apprehension responsibility. A fugitive is considered cleared if the fugitive is arrested, has a detainer issued, or the warrant is dismissed.
Data Collection and Storage: Data is maintained in the Warrant Information Network system (WIN) which is a module within the Justice Detainee Information System (JDIS). WIN data is entered by Deputy U.S. Marshals. Upon receiving a warrant, Deputy U.S. Marshals access the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) through WIN to enter data or to look for previous criminal information. WIN data is stored centrally at headquarters, is accessible to all districts, and is updated as new information is collected.
Data Validation and Verification: Warrant and fugitive data is verified by a random sampling of NCIC records generated by the FBI. The USMS coordinates with district offices to verify that warrants are validated against the signed paper records. The USMS then forwards the validated records back to NCIC.
Data Limitations: This data is accessible to all districts and updated as new information is collected. There may be a lag in the reporting of data.
a. Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes
As illustrated in the preceding Performance and Resources Table, one performance outcome measure for this decision unit is: “number of primary violent federal and violent non-federal felony fugitives apprehended or cleared.” This includes physical arrest, directed arrest, surrender, dismissal, arrest by another agency, or when a fugitive is taken into custody on a detainment order. The warrants covered by both of these measures include: non-negligent homicide, rape, aggravated assault, or robbery, or if there was an arrest or conviction in the fugitive’s record for any of these offenses, or for any sex offense as defined in the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. Another performance outcome measure is: “number and percent of primary federal felony fugitives apprehended or cleared.”
The USMS has changed its fugitive apprehension key indicator measures to “Number and Percent of primary Federal felony fugitives apprehended or cleared.” This was a result of a program assessment of the fugitive apprehension program. This measure more accurately reflects the primary mission of the fugitive apprehension program. The prior key indicator included cases in which the USMS was not the primary apprehending agency and also fugitives wanted for less serious crimes (e.g. traffic violations). The current measures address these shortcomings by focusing on cases in which the USMS has primary arresting authority and cases that arguably have a greater impact on public safety, making them a priority of USMS fugitive apprehension efforts.
For FY 2008, the USMS significantly cleared more federal, state, and local felony fugitives than in FY 2007. The success of FY 2008 is directly attributable to the ongoing efforts of Operation FALCON (Federal and Local Cops Organized Nationally) and the increased resources for RFTFs. Partnering with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies throughout the country to pool resources and share investigative information has led to incredible results.
In FY 2007, the USMS RFTFs cleared 37 percent more violent state and local fugitive felons. The increase is attributed to the opening of the sixth RFTF in the Gulf Coast region. In FY 2008, the USMS RFTFs exceeded last year’s totals through the efforts of Operation Orange Crush in Florida. This was an unprecedented law enforcement effort concentrated on a single state over a specific 3-month time period. Among the objectives of this operation was the arrest of a significant number of violent fugitives, resulting in safer communities statewide. Non-violent felons were not targeted. In Operation Orange Crush, the USMS netted over 2,000 arrests. Unlike previous RFTF initiatives, Operation Orange Crush was a focused temporary measure. The USMS intends to establish a permanent RFTF in the region when resources are provided to create the infrastructure necessary to sustain a large-scale, multi-agency task force. Through the RFTFs, state and local agencies have a more direct way to track down their highest priority fugitives, many of whom are violent repeat offenders. The USMS’ six RFTFs enable Deputy Marshals to target and capture more dangerous fugitives.
Also in FY 2008, the USMS continued Fugitive Safe Surrender, a faith-based initiative that encourages fugitives to surrender to authorities in a safe, non-violent manner. A 3-day initiative in Washington, DC resulted in 530 fugitive surrenders. Since the start of this initiative in FY 2006, USMS, local law enforcement, and religious leaders have led a very successful fugitive apprehension initiative resulting in the peaceful surrender of nearly 6,500 fugitives at local churches, including 1,449 felons. The program does not provide amnesty, but encourages fugitives to surrender under circumstances that guarantee their safety and the safety of the surrounding community.
The actual performance in the number of assets disposed is largely dependent upon the number of assets seized and forfeited by the participants in the DOJ AFP. The USMS should have a proportionate number of assets in custody at the close of each fiscal year. The first performance measure is the number of assets disposed of in the following asset categories: a) real property; b) cash; and c) other (i.e., businesses, business inventory, financial instruments, and personal property such as vehicles, vessels, aircraft and firearms). In FY 2008, the USMS disposed of over 19,000 assets. More importantly, the total value of assets on hand has grown. In FY 2007, the total value was $1.65 billion, and at the end of FY 2008 it was $1.66 billion, indicating that the USMS continues to make sound business decisions to return higher proceeds to the Fund. DOJ has a number of new initiatives which will result in an increase in forfeiture actions which will increase the pre-seizure, seizure, management, and disposition workload of the USMS. The USMS anticipates that this level of asset disposal can be sustained in FY 2009 and FY 2010.
The second performance measure is the percent of real property assets sold at 85 percent or more of their fair market value. The target performance level was 83 percent in FY 2008, however the USMS did not meet its target, instead reaching only 69 percent. This is symptomatic of the national trend in depressed real estate sales. The third performance measure is the percent of real property assets disposed of within one year of receipt of the forfeiture documentation. The target performance level was 82 percent in FY 2008, however the USMS did not meet its target, instead reaching only 68 percent. The time frame set by the USMS for disposal of real property is 12 months (365 days) based on the best practices of the real estate industry. The likely reason for the longer time frame is due to the longer time real property stayed on the market for sale. For FY 2009, the USMS will be re-evaluating its performance measures so that the USMS can be evaluated on performance apart from external economic trends.
b. Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes
During FY 2008, the USMS, with guidance and direction from the DOJ Criminal Division, issued interim legal and investigative guidelines to investigate violations of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The USMS is establishing contacts with state registries to coordinate efforts to identify non-compliant sex offenders and has purchased licenses from two vendors for commercially available database services and software to assist in identifying, investigating, locating, apprehending, and prosecuting non-compliant sex offenders. The USMS is also coordinating its enforcement efforts with the Department of Homeland Security’s Operation Predator, primarily through the Law Enforcement Support Center in Burlington, Vermont, to ensure that alien sex offenders arrested by the USMS are referred to DHS for potential removal proceedings.
The Technical Operations Group (TOG) supported regional and circuit judicial conferences and other nnational special security events. TOG further increased performance in communication interoperability and encryption by providing over 1,000 hours of training to operational personnel, as well as classified briefings and training in technical operations for Congressional Appropriations Committees, Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and prosecutors and investigators from across the country. TOG signed on as a founding endorser of the Joint Communications Access Project (JCAP), a collaborative effort across major federal, state, county, and municipal technical investigative agencies to address high cost, access, standards, bandwidth, storage, buffering, decryption, and filtering issues associated with broadband and multi-access point roving data intercepts and other highly specialized aspects of electronic communications exploitation. By leveraging existing intercept capabilities, networks and experience, JCAP’s goal is to demonstrate cooperative accomplishments at reduced cost without the requirement for a central electronic surveillance office.
The USMS foreign field offices in Mexico, Jamaica, and the Dominican Republic, continue to improve communication for extraditions, coordinate the investigation of leads in neighboring countries, and initiate host country investigations in the United States. Since the placement of senior Deputy Marshals in these three countries in 2003, the USMS has exceeded total extraditions and deportations every year. FY 2008 was no different as the USMS conducted more extraditions and deportations through the end of third quarter than in all of FY 2007.
The USMS is also responsible for approximately 90 percent of all Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) fugitive investigations. USMS OCDETF inspectors work diligently with district Deputy Marshals and other law enforcement agencies to clear over 5,000 OCDETF warrants, bringing many drug-related and organized crime felons to justice.
In FY 2007, DOJ requested that the USMS conduct a comprehensive workforce evaluation to address current and future AFP workforce needs. The analysis led to a number of findings to “right size” the AFP workforce by recruiting highly skilled individuals to meet the increasing complexity of the assets managed and disposed of by the USMS. The USMS worked with DOJ to implement a number of these recommendations in FY 2008 and is on track to continue implementation in FY 2009. Changes include: hiring staff in districts specifically identified with significant internal control weaknesses; updating position descriptions; evaluating positions for potential re-classification; and designing and implementing a new Asset Forfeiture training program.
c. Results of Program Assessment Reviews
The Fugitive Apprehension program was reviewed in FY 2003 and was re-evaluated in FY 2007. In the most recent evaluation, the program achieved a rating of “Moderately Effective.” Three recommendations were made as a result of this evaluation. First, the USMS should pursue developing a comprehensive assessment of where additional Regional Fugitive Task Forces and/or special apprehension operations might have the most impact. To address this, the USMS has identified twelve (12) regions where the addition of a RFTF would make the greatest impact. The USMS uses crime trend assessments to make this determination. Additionally, the USMS plans to continue utilizing Operation FALCON.
Second, the USMS should enhance its ability to identify, track, and share gang-related intelligence. The USMS has addressed this recommendation by placing a criminal investigator at the DOJ Gang Targeting, Enforcement Coordination Center (GangTECC), to better coordinate the apprehension of fugitive gang members. The USMS also participates in OneDOJ, a database that collects investigative information from all DOJ components as part of a de-confliction process. Additionally, other DOJ components have access to USMS investigative material related to wanted gang members.
Finally, the USMS should develop a long term strategy in support of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. Since the enactment of the Act, the USMS has initiated several strategies by utilizing existing fugitive task forces, establishing the Sex Offender Investigations Branch, assigning a full time liaison to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and designating Sex Offender Investigative Coordinators in each of the 94 judicial districts. With the recently enacted FY 2008 GWOT Supplemental, the USMS received $16.970 million to begin enforcing the Act. This includes establishing the National Sex Offender Targeting Center (NSOTC), intelligence and operations center supporting the identification, investigation, location, apprehension, and prosecution of non-compliant sex offenders. The NSOTC will operate in partnership with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and other concerned federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.
C. Prisoner Security and Transportation
|Prisoner Security and Transportation TOTAL |Perm. Pos. |FTE |Amount |
|2008 Enacted with Rescissions |886 |843 |$171,971 |
| 2008 Supplementals |… |… |… |
|2008 Enacted w/Rescissions and Supplementals |886 |843 |171,971 |
|2009 Enacted |1,008 |956 |198,197 |
|Adjustments to Base and Technical Adjustments |… |36 |8,299 |
|2010 Current Services |1,008 |992 |206,496 |
|2010 Program Increases |233 |117 |44,782 |
|2010 Request |1,241 |1,109 |251,278 |
|Total Change 2009-2010 |233 |153 |53,080 |
1. Program Description
Prisoner Security and Transportation is made up of the following activities: processing prisoners in the cellblock, securing the cellblock area, transporting prisoners by ground or air, and inspecting jails used to house federal detainees. As each prisoner is placed into USMS custody, a Deputy Marshal is required to “process” that prisoner. Processing consists of interviewing the prisoner to gather personal, arrest, prosecution, and medical information; fingerprinting and photographing the prisoner; preparing an inventory of any received prisoner property; entering/placing the data and records into the Justice Detainee Information System (JDIS) and the prisoner file; and sending the electronic fingerprint information to the FBI to store in its Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). Using IAFIS, the USMS is able to efficiently track the prisoner as he/she proceeds through the system.
The cellblock is the secured area for holding prisoners in the courthouse before and after they are scheduled to appear in their court proceeding. Deputy Marshals follow strict safety protocols in the cellblocks to ensure the safety of USMS employees and members of the judicial process. A minimum of two Deputy Marshals are required to be present when cells are unlocked or entered, when prisoners are moved into or out of the cellblock or holding cell areas, when prisoners of the opposite sex are being handled, or when meals are being served. Female and juvenile prisoners must be separated by sight and sound from adult male prisoners within the cellblock. Deputy Marshals must observe the prisoners at least every thirty minutes and must count them every eight hours. Deputy Marshals minimize the amount of time that prisoners who exhibit violent behavior or signs of possible drug overdose, severe mental disorder, or suicidal tendencies are held in the cellblock and closely monitor them during that time. Deputy Marshals provide meals to prisoners if held in the cellblock during normal lunch or dinner hours. Prior to entrance into the cellblock, Deputy Marshals search prisoners and any court clothing provided by Public Defenders to ensure that prisoners and their property are free of contraband.
The USMS is also responsible for transporting prisoners to and from judicial proceedings. Some jails agree to transport prisoners to and from the courthouse at specified rates (which are added to the monthly housing bills); however, most transportation of prisoners is done by Deputy Marshals. Deputy Marshals arrange with jails to have needed prisoners ready to be transported, search the prisoner prior to transport, and properly restrain the prisoners during transportation.
In addition to transporting prisoners to and from the courthouse, Deputy Marshals also transport prisoners between detention facilities for attorney visits, to medical appointments when necessary, and to their Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facility upon designation after sentencing. As prisoners progress through their court proceedings, districts often move prisoners from one detention facility to another. This is done for a variety of reasons: to locate a prisoner closer or farther from the courthouse, to accommodate the housing limitations at detention facilities, to take advantage of lower-cost jails which may be further from the courthouse, to place prisoners at facilities better equipped to deal with any medical requirements, or to remove a prisoner from other prisoners due to conflict or litigation concerns with other prisoners. When prisoners are wanted in more than one district, Deputy Marshals transport the prisoner to the requesting district upon completion of the court process in the home district.
Occasionally, district offices are required to use air transportation other than the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System (JPATS). For example, in Alaska it is necessary to fly prisoners due to lack of road access in many areas. Another example is transportation of a seriously-ill prisoner. Receiving prisoners into custody, processing them through the cellblock, and transporting them are labor-intensive activities. Producing prisoners for court and detention related activities requires the USMS to partner with the U.S. Courts, Probation and Pretrial Service Offices, BOP, U.S. Attorneys (USA), and a variety of law enforcement agencies. Though the oversight and funding of federal detention resides with the DOJ Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT), the USMS remains responsible for day-to-day processing and confinement of detainees in its custody.
To ensure that prisoners are being confined securely and humanely, Deputy Marshals inspect state and local detention facilities annually. Additionally, inspections are required before the USMS enters into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with a facility to house prisoners or upon completion of major changes in operations or physical structure of any facility already being used. The USMS trains Deputy Marshals on the standard conditions of confinement. After an inspection, the Deputy Marshal briefs a detention facility officer on the findings and prepares a written report. Detention facility inspections enable the districts and headquarters to identify problem areas early and identify facilities that provide the best value.
2. Performance Table
|PERFORMANCE AND RESOURCES TABLE |
|Decision Unit: Prisoner Security and Transportation |
|DOJ Strategic Goal/Objective: III: Ensure the Fair and Efficient Administration of Justice. 3.1 Protect judges, witnesses, and other participants in federal proceedings, and ensure the appearance of |
|criminal defendants for judicial proceedings or confinement. |
|WORKLOAD/ RESOURCES |Final Target | Actual |Projected |Changes |Requested (Total) |
| |FY 2008 |FY 2008 | 2009 Requirements |Current Services Adjustments |FY 2010 Request |
| | | | |and FY2010 Program Changes | |
|1. Prisoners received |275,346 |285,530 |300,395 |28,610 |329,005 |
|2. Number of prisoner productions |869,518 |926,878 |974,158 |93,857 |1,068,005 |
| |FTE |$000 |FTE |$000 |FTE |
|Outcome Measure |
|Decision Unit: Prisoner Security and Transportation |
|Performance Report and Performance Plan Targets |FY 2002 |FY 2003 |FY2004 |
|2008 Enacted with Rescissions |194 |190 |29,889 |
| 2008 Supplementals |… |… |… |
|2008 Enacted w/Rescissions and Supplementals |194 |190 |29,889 |
|2009 Enacted |201 |197 |32,024 |
|Adjustments to Base and Technical Adjustments |… |… |1,050 |
|2010 Current Services |201 |197 |33,074 |
|2010 Program Increases |… |… |… |
|2010 Request |201 |197 |33,074 |
|Total Change 2009-2010 |… |… |1,050 |
1. Program Description
The Protection of Witnesses is managed by the Witness Security Program (WSP) which was established by the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 and amended by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. This program provides protection for government witnesses whose lives are threatened as a result of their testimony against drug traffickers, terrorists, organized crime members, and other major criminals. The WSP provides physical security during the trial proceedings as well as assistance to create new identities and relocate witnesses and their families after the trial. Although it was initially established in the 1970’s to protect witnesses against Mafia organizations, the WSP was later expanded to include witnesses against drug traffickers. After the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the WSP was again expanded to include witnesses testifying against terrorist organizations.
Three Department of Justice components work collaboratively to administer the WSP. The Criminal Division’s Office of Enforcement Operations (OEO) authorizes the entry of witnesses into the program. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) protects witnesses incarcerated in federal prison facilities. The USMS protects civilian witnesses and their families, relocates them to a secure location, provides them with new identities, and assists them with housing, medical care, job training, and employment until the participants become self-sufficient.
Two different appropriations fund the USMS portion of the WSP. The USMS S&E appropriation funds the salaries, benefits, and the day-to-day operating expenses (such as utilities, supplies, and equipment) for USMS personnel who administer the WSP. The Fees and Expenses of Witnesses (FEW) appropriation funds the expenses related to witness subsistence and relocation, vehicles for WSP Deputy Marshals, and maintenance/repair of safe sites.
Since its inception, the USMS has protected, relocated, and given new identities to more than 8,100 witnesses and over 9,800 family members. The successful operation of this program is widely recognized as providing a unique and valuable tool in the government's war against major criminal conspirators and organized crime.
In both criminal and civil matters involving protected witnesses, the USMS fully cooperates with local law enforcement and court authorities in bringing witnesses to justice or in having them fulfill their legal responsibilities. No program participant who follows security guidelines has ever been harmed by the individuals or organizations they testified against while under the protection of the Marshals Service.
2. Performance Tables
|PERFORMANCE AND RESOURCES TABLE |
|Decision Unit: Protection of Witnesses |
|DOJ Strategic Goal/Objective: III: Ensure the Fair and Efficient Administratio of Justice. 3.1 Protect judges, witnesses, and other participants in federal proceedings, and ensure the appearance of |
|criminal defendants for judicial proceedings or confinement. |
|WORKLOAD/ RESOURCES |Final Target | Actual |Projected |Changes |Requested (Total) |
| |FY 2008 |FY 2008 | 2009 Requirements |Current Services Adjustments and|FY 2010 Request |
| | | | |FY 2010 Program Changes | |
|1. New witnesses received |170 |115 |192 |(42) |150 |
|2. Total witness security program participants |18,080 |17,948 |18,312 |(12) |18,300 |
|Total Costs and FTE |FTE |$000 |FTE |$000 |FTE |$000 |
|(reimbursable FTE are | | | | | | |
|included, but | | | | | | |
|reimbursable costs are | | | | | | |
|bracketed and not | | | | | | |
|included in the total) | | | | | | |
|OUTCOME |2. Assaults against funded protected federal |… |… |… |… |… |
| |witnesses. | | | | | |
A. Definition of Terms or explanations for Indicators:
Workload:
1. New witnesses received are the number of witnesses accepted into the Witness Security Program.
2. Total Witness Security Program participants are the total number of participants, including immediate family members, currently in the program.
Performance Measures:
1. A witness production is defined as travel of a protected witness away from the relocation area for court testimony, non-court related travel, video teleconferencing, neutral sites, child visitations, and documentation productions.
Outcome:
2. The number of assaults against funded protected federal witnesses reflects the number of attacks on witnesses authorized for program participation that are receiving subsistence and housing expenses.
B. Factors Affecting FY 2008 Program Performance.
The USMS does not control new case authorizations. It is OEO that authorizes new cases. Likewise, productions are also difficult to predict. Production activity by nature is responsive to requests of prosecutors and requires approval of OEO.
C. Factors Affecting FY 2009 and FY 2010 Plans.
The increase in high-threat trials involving gang members has increased the number of WSP participants who have gang affiliation. This trend is expected to continue as the Administration’s priorities continue to focus on anti-gang enforcement.
** Based on the actual number of witness productions in FY 2008, the program office is anticipating fewer witness security program participants resulting in fewer protected witness productions.
|PERFORMANCE MEASURE TABLE |
|Decision Unit: Protection of Witnesses | | | |
|Performance Report and Performance Plan Targets |FY 2002 |FY 2003 |FY 2004 |
|2008 Enacted with Rescissions |167 |162 |$33,873 |
| 2008 Supplementals |… |… |3,700 |
|2008 Enacted w/Rescissions and Supplementals |167 |162 |37,573 |
|2009 Enacted |173 |168 |35,685 |
|Adjustments to Base and Technical Adjustments |… |… |895 |
|2010 Current Services |173 |168 |36,580 |
|2010 Program Increases |… |… |… |
|2010 Request |173 |168 |36,580 |
|Total Change 2009-2010 |… |… |895 |
1. Program Description
The Tactical Operations decision unit is comprised of: the Special Operations Group; the Office of Emergency Management (including the Emergency Operations and Communications Center), and the Office of Resource Management.
Special Operations Group (SOG)
For more than 35 years the Special Operations Group (SOG) has supported the USMS, the Department of Justice, and other government agencies with a highly-trained, rapidly-deployable force of law enforcement officers for tactical response. SOG is comprised of 80-100 volunteer Deputy Marshals who must qualify to join the unit by meeting high qualification standards and completing rigorous training in specialties such as high-risk entry, explosive breaching, sniper/observer, rural operations, evasive driving, less lethal munitions, waterborne operations, and tactical medical support. SOG supports all 94 U.S. judicial districts, territories, and possessions by providing assistance in high-risk, sensitive law enforcement operations including protective details, national emergencies, civil disturbances, and national disasters. Due to the extensive training of SOG members, the unit is often called upon to train military, federal, state, local, and foreign law enforcement groups in various tactical specialties.
Based at Camp Beauregard, Louisiana, a major staging area for FEMA disaster response in the Southeast and a geographically central location for domestic operations, the Special Operations Group Tactical Center (SOGTC) is able to provide a rapid response throughout the country. From this base, SOG deploys its fleet of armored vehicles, specialized equipment and tactical operators in support of domestic USMS operations such as Top 15 investigations, Fugitive Task Forces, terrorist trial and other high-threat or high-profile judicial proceedings, motorcade protection for high-value individuals, and execution of court orders relating to the seizure of assets belonging to militia groups, domestic terrorist groups, and other anti-government organizations.
The USMS is specifically relied upon to conduct national security operations on behalf of various U.S. government entities due to its broad authority and jurisdiction. SOG is selected for these national security operations due to the sensitive, covert nature of these missions requiring elevated security clearances and specific training, equipment and tactical assets.
SOG participates in the international Stabilization and Reconstruction program working closely with DOD, DOJ, and Department of State personnel in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. SOG has designed and constructed court facilities, judicial housing, and witness protection safe sites in Iraq and the Counter Narcotics Judicial Center in Afghanistan. SOG also provides technologically-advanced security equipment and programs to improve judicial and witness security, helping to lay the foundation for a more effective judicial system and assisting in the stabilization of the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Office of Emergency Management
The Office of Emergency Management (OEM) is the primary point of contact when the USMS is involved in sensitive and classified missions. The OEM has primary responsibility over the agency’s actions involving homeland security, national emergencies, and domestic crises, and it ensures the USMS continuity of operations during emergency situations. The OEM has oversight for numerous emergency management programs including: Strategic National Stockpile Security Operations, the Explosive Detection Canine Program, USMS Emergency Response Operations, USMS Security Program, the Communications Center, the Emergency Operations Center, Incident Management Teams, Peer Support Program and its Critical Incident Management Teams, and Continuity of Government (COG)/ Continuity of Operations (COOP) Programs.
All USMS operational missions are coordinated through the USMS Communications Center and the Emergency Operations Center. The Communications Center operates 24 hours-a-day, 7 days-a-week to ensure inter-agency and intra-agency flow of communication. The Center provides informational assistance to Deputy Marshals in the field who are tracking fugitives, developing leads, and confirming warrants. The Center is also a focal point for all incoming and outgoing classified information relevant to the USMS. All significant incidents such as: shootings in the line of duty, employee injury or death, assaults/attempted assaults of an individual under USMS protection, deaths of prisoners in USMS custody, escapes of federal prisoners, major arrests, and district emergencies, are reported to the Center. The Center then notifies the appropriate personnel and districts and ensures that the proper action is taken.
The Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is activated during emergency incidents involving a coordinated agency-wide response. This includes responses under the federal government’s National Response Framework. The EOC is a critical element to ensure coordination and oversight of USMS deployments to emergencies, particularly when there are other government agencies involved.
OEM ensures that the USMS has a viable Continuity of Operations (COOP) plan as required by Presidential Directives, Executive Orders, and Federal Continuity Directives (FCD) 1 and 2. OEM works closely with other federal agencies to ensure that a comprehensive program is in place and provides necessary direction to: continue essential functions, reduce operational disruptions, identify USMS personnel to perform emergency functions, plan for the protection of employees, and designate leadership lines of succession.
The Explosive Detection Canine Program (EDCP) provides support for the following purposes: searching for explosive devices and firearms in the safest most expedient manner possible in consideration of the safety of the judiciary, court staff, the public, and law enforcement officers; assisting other law enforcement agencies in searching for explosive devices and firearms, resulting in active interaction and coordination with these agencies; and meeting with civic groups to give demonstrations which help the public understand the missions of the USMS. Currently, there are 9 USMS canine teams in service.
The Critical Incident Response Team (CIRT) is a Peer Support Program (PSP) that coordinates crisis intervention services and provides USMS employees with the opportunity to receive tangible crisis intervention services and stress management education following critical incidents. The CIRT is comprised of 60 volunteer Peers who are specially trained and certified in Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM) and available for immediate deployment in response to critical incidents. In FY 2008, the CIRT responded to 96 critical incidents involving USMS employees, including numerous shooting incidents and the sudden deaths and traumatic injuries of employees.
Office of Resource Management
In order for the USMS to provide the required resources to adequately handle civil disturbances, natural disasters, and extraordinary district operations, the Office of Resource Management calls upon all available agency resources from districts and divisions. Deputy Marshals are selected from various districts and divisions and are equipped and deployed in a manner to minimize significant disruptions to normal business activities. These deployments vary in duration and continue until the mission is successfully completed.
2. Performance Table
|PERFORMANCE AND RESOURCES TABLE |
|Decision Unit: Tactical Operations |
|DOJ Strategic Goal/Objective: III: Ensure the Fair and Efficient Operation of the Federal Justice System. 3.1 Protect judges, witnesses, and other participants in federal proceedings, and ensure the appearance of |
|criminal defendants for judicial proceedings or confinement. |
| |Final Target | Actual |Projected |Changes |Requested (Total) |
|TYPE/ STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE |PERFORMANCE |FY 2008 |FY 2008 |FY 2009 Requirements |Current Services Adjustments |FY 2010 Request |
| | | | | |and FY 2010 Program Changes | |
Performance Measure |2. Percentage of deployments of special operations/assignments staff or resources before a planned event or within 48 hours of an unforseen emergency. |100% |100% |100% |… |100% | |
A. Definition of Terms or Explanation of Indicators:
Performance Measures:
1. This represents the number of times a special occurrence or event happened where special operations and assignment resources and/or staff were deployed in response.
2. The USMS strives for a consistent timely response to unforeseen emergencies and planned events. The percentage of deployments applies in cases where the request for assistance reaches headquarters at least 48 hours prior to the beginning of the planned event.
B. Factors Affecting FY 2008 Program Performance.
In FY 2007, the USMS began deploying Deputy Marshals to Kabul, Afghanistan, to secure the Afghanistan judicial complex. The deployed operational personnel train and equip a Judicial and Witness Security Protection Unit of the Counter Narcotic Police of Afghanistan, a necessary component in the development of the Criminal Justice Task Force and Central Narcotics Tribunal (CNT). These USMS personnel ensure that the new Counter Narcotic Justice Center is physically secure and that witnesses in sensitive, high-level cases to be tried by the CNT are protected from threat and harm.
Additional SOG Deputy Marshals are performing duty rotations in Baghdad, Iraq, assisting with and providing training for judicial and witness security. Although these assignments enhance the USMS response to a high-threat foreign location, they deplete the available specially-trained deputies for domestic emergency response.
Several domestic situations added to SOG activities in FY 2008, including severe flooding in the Midwest, hurricanes in the Southeast, and the Democratic and Republican National Conventions conducted prior to the November 2008 election.
C. Factors Affecting Selection of FY 2009 and FY 2010 Plans.
The request reflects an anticipated increase in high-threat trials, including those involving terrorists and gang members to ensure additional SOG deployments necessary for district security. In June 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the approximately 270 terrorism detainees held in Guantanamo Bay at that time had the legal right to challenge their detention in civilian courts. Any cases arising out of this decision would be held in the mainland United States. In addition, SOG anticipates increased participation in Regional Fugitive Task Forces across the country, especially in relation to the apprehension of non-compliant sex offenders as defined
in the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. Funding for the National Sex Offender Targeting Center became available through the FY 2008 Supplemental Appropriations Act which will increase investigation and apprehension efforts. Additional high-profile prosecutions are also expected in housing and mortgage fraud-related cases.
SOG Deputy Marshals also respond to emergency situations caused by natural disasters, including weather-related incidents. In May 2008, the National Weather Service released a forecast calling for an “above normal” level of hurricane activity in the Atlantic during the August-November season. By mid-September, SOG Deputy Marshals had already responded to a series of hurricane and tropical weather systems that directly hit or impacted the southern United States in rapid succession. These climate conditions are expected to continue into FY 2009.
SOG also provided support during the 2008 federal election season as candidates campaigned across the United States.
SOG’s ability to deploy in response to special missions is highly dependent on two critical factors: availability and training of Deputy Marshals. The USMS SOG Advisory Committee has recommended expanding the pool of eligible Deputy Marshal applicants to the SOG program by including Deputy Marshals in the GS-0082 job series, which, if implemented, would create a cadre of 100+ SOG Deputy Marshals (up from the current 86) available to respond to special incidents. Also, if no additional funding is appropriated for SOG activities in Afghanistan beyond the FY 2008 Supplemental Appropriations Act, the Afghanistan mission will be terminated and those Deputy Marshals will be returned to the United States and added to the pool available for domestic response. Sustainment training in particular is critical to the success of SOG missions because Deputy Marshals are based in districts throughout the country and only come together to train as a unit during these sustainment training sessions.
[pic]
3. Performance, Resources, and Strategies
The Operations Support decision unit supports the Department’s Strategic Goal III: Ensure the Fair and Efficient Operation of the Federal Justice System. Within this Goal, the decision unit’s resources specifically address one of the Department’s Strategic Objectives: 3.1- “Protect judges, witnesses, and other participants in Federal proceedings, and ensure the appearance of criminal defendants for judicial proceedings or confinement.”
a. Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes
The USMS strives to provide effective assistance to all levels of government during emergencies and disasters and at times of heightened law enforcement requirements. The USMS is able to deploy its Deputy Marshal workforce to any national emergency designated by the Attorney General. The USMS also successfully protected the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS),[2] continued to advance the USMS ability to respond to an emergency by instituting the Continuity of Operations (COOP)/Continuation of Government (COG) programs, and participated in several national interagency training exercises[3]. Government authority and continuity of operation of the federal justice system must be maintained during emergencies. Professionalism of the USMS will increase through standardization of operations support, improved operational data management, and reduction of audit findings. In FY 2007, the USMS conducted 59 emergency operations and in all cases deployed SOG personnel within 48 hours of a declared emergency.
b. Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes
The USMS deploys personnel and equipment in support of extraordinary district requirements, ensuring adequate resources are provided to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. The USMS will attempt to: improve its capability to deploy personnel and equipment in response to terrorist acts, natural disasters, and other external missions directed by the Attorney General; maintain operational readiness for efficient movement of people and equipment; and coordinate efforts and increase communication lines between the Strategic National Stockpile Security Operations Unit and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to insure adequate dissemination of intelligence information to thwart or respond to terrorist activities. For FY 2008, the USMS responded to 51 situations requiring an emergency response and the 48-hour response time was met in all. For FY 2009, the USMS anticipates an increase to 70 situations due to the increased workload associated with the SNS.
c. Results of Program Assessment Reviews
The resources for Operations Support were reviewed in 2008. Status updates to the recommendations are covered in the Judicial and Courthouse Security decision unit.
-----------------------
[1] Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “A Decade of Change in the Federal Courts Caseload: Fiscal Years 1997-2006”, The Third Branch, Vol. 39, Number 11, November 2007
[2] The USMS has a reimbursable agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to provide security for the SNS.
[3] These exercises included the Congressionally-mandated Top Officials exercise in April 2005, Operation Pinnacle in June 2005, and the 2007 Title Globe exercise series.
-----------------------
[pic]
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- united states savings bond calculator
- united states government wage garnishment
- united states savings bonds series ee
- united states savings bonds worth
- united states treasury bonds calculator
- united states savings bond ee
- united states laws
- united states savings bonds i series
- united states education ranking
- united states history research paper topics
- united states mission to the united nations
- united states postal service forward address